2020 US Election Polls

[AndyDWUW 3,971]

Everyone saw through warren’s orchestrated smear campaign lmfao

 

so glad

 

 

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

I’m hoping he keeps rising and manages to win many states! 

It’s going to be an interesting primary, I can’t wait for February 3! 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

18 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

I’m hoping he keeps rising and manages to win many states! 

It’s going to be an interesting primary, I can’t wait for February 3! 

I can tbh, its going to be bloody and messy. Some journalist insider on twitter heard that Bloomberg has spent money making ads against Bernie that are coming up  I guess that's what he meant by "I'll spend $1 billion to help democrats get elected!"

Ofc, its just a rumor, but seeing how they are throwing everything at the wall against him right now, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be true.

[Maleficent 6]

23 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I can tbh, its going to be bloody and messy. Some journalist insider on twitter heard that Bloomberg has spent money making ads against Bernie that are coming up  I guess that's what he meant by "I'll spend $1 billion to help democrats get elected!"

Ofc, its just a rumor, but seeing how they are throwing everything at the wall against him right now, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be true.

tbh they should know slander will probably invigorate the sander supporters 

[bloom 286]

July 1st, 2019:

Joe: 29%, Berntie: 23%, Queen Elizabeth: 11%

January 23rd, 2020:

Joe: 28%, Slanders: 24%, Queen Elizabeth: 11%

 

Wowe.

[Bye 3,947]

We love to see it. 

[Buddy 5,686]

His surge being the same amount as Buttigieg's total 

[bloom 286]

4 minutes ago, Buddy said:

His surge being the same amount as Buttigieg's total 

I'm so glad Bootyitch plummeted. What an awful candidate and human. 

[ode 1,534]

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, Halsey said:

I actually don’t back Joe, but I will defend him from unnecessary, rude comments.

 

I’m with Pete because he best aligns with what I seek in a candidate. I don’t believe im M4A because my parents get phenomenal due to their employers & I don’t want our family to lose it. I also fear for the effects it could have on the medical industry, as I personally would rather be able to shell out extra $ for my preferred doctor than forced to go with the government provided option. I think M4Awhowantit is a much more fair plan that gives American’s the freedom of choice over where their money goes while still ensuring that EVERYONE can get cheap healthcare. I also value his military experience as someone who is studying International Relations in college. (I will say in terms of foreign policy, Biden makes me the most comfortable due to his experience & connections with world leaders. He has stable relationships with Trudeau/Macron/Merkel, likely Boris Johnson, etc.)

Not trying to convince you of anything, but I will point out a few misconceptions about Medicare For All.

1) Under M4A your parents wouldn't lose their insurance, they would lose the company that charges you for the insurance. Everyone would still be covered, and they actually would probably have more comprehensive insurance depending on how high quality the insurance they currently have is. For example, most insurance plans don't cover in home patient care (something elderly people especially need, but often cannot get due to lack of insurance and which tends to lead to them being shipped off to bad retirement homes), but M4A will cover this at no additional price.

2) The quality of the care they receive would remain the same, as the doctors and providers would be the same literally, though you could now go to previously "out of network" doctors for free and no additional charge - so it could be potentially better!

3) The difference is that they would pay less for their insurance, and it would come as a 4% income tax as opposed to deductibles, co-payments, premiums, and out of pocket expenses

 - That tax would also be most likely a lot less than how much they pay for Deductibles, Premiums, co-pays, and out of pocket expenses, possibly up to thousands less per year. 

- The exception is if your parents are either relatively affluent (like ballpark over $100,000 as individuals) and everyone who has that insurance plan only goes to the doctor like once or twice a year max, in which case it would be only slightly different from what they currently pay on either end, but the average person will save money, and most families of 3 and 4+ would especially save money cause of dependents and joint filings)

4) This one is long, but go with me:

M4AWWI actually doesn't guarantee that EVERYONE can get healthcare, let alone CHEAP healthcare. Let's tackle "everyone"

Under M4AWWI, People would still be uninsured - there are still large chunks of people who would slip through the cracks per the method the plan says it will evaluate people's eligibility for their program (which is a triangulation of people in between their eligibility for medicaid, Obamacare, etc. Millions would be in between qualifying for neither Medicaid and M4AWWI if it was implemented tomorrow).

Its' "automatic enrollment" plan is actually somewhat impossible in our current government tax structure. M4AWWI is a means tested public option, so for those who don't qualify for others but should be "automatically enrolled' per the wording of the plan, there actually isn't a reliable means of ascertaining through our existing tax information and data whether or not the right people will be placed into it. It would have to make assumptions. This is because in America our taxes are not done automatically by the government. We don't just know how much everyone makes, has made, will make, how their dependents change, their address changes, etc. at any given time in a year. What we do know is what they file, which should be expected to fluctuate for the average person as they go through life. One solution to this would be to just use people's tax filings when the government gets them and enroll based off of that information, but that would certainly guarantee lower enrollment on top of delays in enrollment, perhaps even substantial ones that leave potentially millions uninsured for months. There would also need to be more resources put into administration that currently doesn't do this job. There wouldn't be a way for People who work in job fields that are not steady 8-5, 5 day a week jobs, but jobs whose income fluctuates in a year to always be accurately enrolled in the public option if they qualify for it. The people who are being screwed over by their states not expanding Medicaid per the ACA will likely still be screwed by this, just in another annoying way - They will make too little for the ACA, but too much for Medicaid since it wasnt expanded universally, and therefore be screwed under this plan too Imagine being in the awkward state of being between qualifying for the public option at some times, and having to fend their own other times in a single year (which would leave them potentially uninsured for months at a time... This means that potentially millions of people who should be automatically enrolled won't be and will have to voluntarily enroll at different times of the year which is a barrier to access, on top of the mess of reimbursements of hospitals which will have to be dealt with someway...

Ultimately, this means unemployed and underprivileged people can and still will find a way to be uninsured by the millions. It really should be titled "Medicare For The Few Who Can Find It"  

M4A on the other hand can guarantee automatic "enrollment" by the virtue of the fact that it will enroll every living breathing American in this country regardless of their income, taxes filed, etc (and yes, it would also apply to undocumented immigrants who live here then). If you go to the doctor, you can get seen w.o there being insurance paperwork filled - you will be generally assumed to have it, though I believe that M4A proponents think printing out cards would be nice for people that like a tangible sense of being "insured"  though they don't know if its necessary entirely.

About  "cheapness" - I don't think this is a claim that M4AWWI can make honestly. The prices of a public option compared to the rest of the market will almost certainly have to change in orde to keep up with the increasing demands and prices of other programs in order to be viable for people who are wanting a cheaper plan, but don't qualify for some other programs. Insurance companies are operating in a market and with a profit motive, so they have strong incentive to change and adapt in order to get more people and more money. They will  even cater towards taking advantage of desperate people in the process -  but they are self-made in a sense and are only expanding current success, not starting from scratch and they can take risks.  If all the people who "like my current insurance" are tempted to stay on their plans by private insurers, the only people who are on the public option will be increasingly people who are poor and in underserved communities (and again, lots of those people will be under enrolled in the first place per this plans shitty automatic enrollment policy)  and not middle class Americans. So, the vast majority of Americans  who are neither automatically enrolled OR already have private insurance would be disincentivized from moving to the public option. 

Since M4AWWI isn't taxing its base of people as a means of making money, instead just being another private option that charges premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc. and just offered by the government instead of a corporation, this plan doesn't have the funding to remain competitive. Low enrollment and lack of competitiveness means that its very likely that the public option will overtime become expensive because the current funding price Buttigieg's plan calls for isn't large enough to sustain its "cheapness" without compromises. (Or, shockingly, it will have to implement new taxes or reallocate funds from somewhere later on to help pay for it - the money has to come from somewhere!)

This means that over time it would logically either have to raise its prices to keep running or cut costs somewhere (or both), which could mean that they begin to cover less and less things, which would mean less and less doctors will be available in this public option network (unless they mandate it, but idk how that would work), which is an issue of quality. All of this which makes it very easy in just a few years politically to disassemble this plan as being "just another expensive handout program that only helps a handful of people, and even the people who have it think it is low quality!" (And they'll be right, the lack of access to good doctors, not comprehensive coverage, frustrations over enrollment, and rising prices are all the makings of an unsuccessful plan in the making) 

It will become the VA, but worse and will be attacked by Republicans as part of their electoral strategy for a generation. Meanwhile, poor people are STILL getting screwed over by our health care system from the top down.

So no, M4AWWI specifically does NOT guarantee Universal Health Coverage, or Cheaper healthcare for all.

For comparison, Warren's plan which is also a public option plan, but with a written in glide path to M4A in 3 years (7 total), is a LOT more viable, self sustaining through taxes, enforces regulations on private insurers and drug companies and hospitals to prevent them overtaking the plan, and has a lot more comprehensive care and coverage. It could *actually* work, the only missing variable is how media is able to attack this plan as "socialism!?!?!?" and "Warren wants you to give up your doctors" etc, which every candidate's plan, even Buttigieg, will have to face eventually. Thats just how lobbying and media work.

 

[SKANK 14,288]

18 minutes ago, bloom said:

I'm so glad Bootyitch plummeted. What an awful candidate and human. 

 

 

 

Your post would fit seamlessly into Donald Trump's pitifully childish twitter feed.

During the last Democratic primary Russia sewed animus between Sanders and Clinton supports by having trolls post things online very similar to your post. They targeted Sander's supports by creating social media posts that dehumanized Clinton. It was a successful attempt at breeding animus among otherwise like minded liberals.

I'm not suggesting you are a Russian troll, or Donald Trump, but you sure do a great impression of both of them.

None of the candidates are awful humans. We don't have to make up childish nicknames for politicians we dislike. I encourage you, and anyone who liked your post to do better. We can do better.

 

 

[bloom 286]

11 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

 

 

Your post would fit seamlessly into Donald Trump's pitifully childish twitter feed.

During the last Democratic primary Russia sewed animus between Sanders and Clinton supports by having trolls post things online very similar to your post. They targeted Sander's supports by creating social media posts that dehumanized Clinton. It was a successful attempt at breeding animus among otherwise like minded liberals.

I'm not suggesting you are a Russian troll, or Donald Trump, but you sure do a great impression of both of them.

None of the candidates are awful humans. We don't have to make up childish nicknames for politicians we dislike. I encourage you, and anyone who liked your post to do better. We can do better.

 

 

Bootyitch really got ya, eh? It is I, Donald Trump Junior!

[lego 44,165]

1 hour ago, bloom said:

Berntie

 

1 hour ago, bloom said:

Slanders

 

Are you antisemitic? 

 

[MrDaniel 14,666]

Keep safe everyone!

[bloom 286]

8 minutes ago, lego said:

 

 

Are you antisemitic? 

 

Are you homophobic?